Whose Line is it Anyway? Series Premiere

Some of you may not know this, but one of my all time favorite shows is Whose Line is it Anyway? It doesn't matter how many times I watch clips from it, I always end up falling out of my chair. So, naturally, when I learned that it was going to be coming back on the CW, I got excited, and then I learned that the three musketeers themselves, Ryan, Colin and Wayne would be back and I was freaking hyped to see this return. The only downside was that Drew Carrey would not be returning as host, due to his obligations of hosting The Price is Right. That was a bummer, but then again a lot of the jokes aimed at him were aimed at his weight, so it just wouldn't be the same. Instead, we have Aisha Tyler from Archer hosting and we've got the rest of the old gang back.

So, how does it hold up? Like you even need to ask, it's freaking Whose Line is it Anyway?! You know right from the get go that it's going to be hilarious! It's formatted exactly the way that it was in the old days, it has the same cast, the same layout, really, the only thing that's different is the host and Colin has white hair, which I will admit was a little unsettling at first, but his humor was just as sharp as ever so I got over it.

The only thing that I was unsure about was the host. Aisha Tyler is a successful comedian herself, though I was apprehensive as to how she would fair as the new host. And to be honest, I think she does alright. She's not all that spectacular in the first episode in terms of her own jokes, but she definitely seems to know what she is doing. I think she just needs a little time to get into the groove of the show. Even if she doesn't, we have the original three, so the host is trivial.

With all that aside, the return of Whose Line deserves to be seen by all. This is something that everyone has been waiting for for years and it doesn't even hint at disappointment. In these times where fandom a are getting hurt by reboots that don't do the original justice, it's nice to see a return that we have been praying for. Whether it's Wayne's songs or Colin and Ryan's bromance, it's almost as if the show never left.

When did villains become hot?

There have been a number of trends popping up in pop culture in past years, but the one that I find the funniest is having to do with villains. When did being the villain become sexy? Think about it. In the old days, the bad guys were always the ones you rooted against. You were not supposed to be attracted to them in any ay because their goals were always not supportable. Now, it seems that the trend is to root FOR the bad guys. There are three characters that come to mind when I think of villains that were considered sexy. Loki, Bane and Khan. All three of these characters want to cause chaos and bring down the people that wronged them. And yet, these are the people that got cheered for the most during their respective movies. When I went to see the most recent Star Trek movie, I went to a special pre screening a few days before the actual release and, as you can imagine, the theater was packed. But when the movie started, I noticed that the parts that everyone cheered at were not the ones with Kirk or Spock or anybody from the Enterprise for that matter, the biggest cheer came at the beginning when they first showed Khan's face and at a part where Khan wastes a group of Klingons single handedly.Now I realize that part of that is due to Benedict  Cumberbatch's already existing cult popularity, but even so, he seems to be the only thing people had to talk about with the movie, or at least the only thing people remember. And with Loki, I remember hearing girls swoon when he first made his appearance in The Avengers, and if you look at the trailer for the new Thor movie, you'll see the comments section loaded with people talking about how hot Tom Hiddleston is. Following the release of The Dark Knight Rises, a lot of people were talking about it, but one of the bigger topics of discussion was how hot Bane was. This one really intrigues me because you can't even see his full face. So I've taken the liberty at looking at the similarities between these characters to see why women find them so appealing.

Number 1- none of them are what you think of when you think of somebody who is good looking. Benedict Cumberbatch especially, but even so, he is considered one of the hottest men in show business and his adoring fangirls have a name for themselves: Cumberbitches. I swear I did not make that up.

Number 2- All of them have a past that is less than pleasent. Loki has living in his brother's shadow, Khan was an outcast and Bane was born in a prison and has to where a mask to survive. People are drawn to that, women especially because that just creates a character that you just want to hug. Like all their problems would go away if they were shown some level of comfort.

Number 3- They are all badboys. Though I don't see how this is appealing because all three of them are too far gone down the path of destruction. You'd think people would be smart enough to realize you can't fix any of these characters because of the past that they have and the present environment that they have to deal with. Bane especially because he's apart of a cult that causes destruction as a means of bringing world peace.

Number 4- They all have a goal, and that is to wreek havoc. And that doesn't sound that appealing because if you want to talk relationship wise, they would be too preoccupied with what they are doing to even remember that they are in a relationship.

Number 5- The actors playing them, while they aren't traditionally good looking, are still intelligent and charming in their own right, which is what most of their fanbase is attracted to. And I think that is where most of it comes from, the already existing reputation of the actors selected to play them. I've already mentioned Benedict Cumberbatch but Tom Hardy and Tom Hiddleston both have their own fangirls, and that number just seemed to get bigger once their respective movies came out. And I think that's why most audiences ended up liking these characters. While the actors are considered hot, they also turned in really good and convincing performances.

So, of the things that they all have in common, probably the biggest appeal comes from both 2 and 5. People seem to be drawn to people that they can fix. In most cases this would fall under the badboy category, but since all of three of these people are, you know, mass murderers and terrorists, I think it's the fact that most of their issues comes from their troubled past that makes people want to fix them and remind them that if things had been different, they could have been a better person. Of course they all have their own reasons for being considered so hot, but since those three stood out the most, I wanted to see what they all had in common, which is not that much, given that they are all from different movie franchises that all have their own unique style and approach.

Monsters University

Prequels are rarely a good sign. I always get the feeling that whenever I see a prequel for an already existing movie, I feel like the studio is throwing up their hands and just saying "We've given up". And I would be lying if I said that thought didn't cross my mind when I first heard about Monsters University, which I originally thought was going to be a short, kind of like how we all thought there was going to be a fourth Toy Story, but it turned out to just be something on the Disney Channel. I thought the case was the same here, and it turns out I was wrong, this was an actual full length movie. And besides, I figured this kind of prequel already had its ending written in. They graduate from college and go on to work for Monsters Inc. And that is where the movie's real strength lies, the fact that that is not how it ends. I don't want to ruin too much for you, but I will say that it certainly threw me for a loop. And I like that it's a children's movie of all things that tried this sort of course. It reinforces the theme that sure, life doesn't always work out the way that we want it to, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give up on our dreams. It's a humbling message to see our characters go through all of this adversity and not get the results that they wished for, but it's also empowering to see how they do end up getting their dream job, which is of course working for the title company, Monsters Inc. Is this a perfect movie? No, there are some shortcomings in the script and even though this is a prequel and a children's one at that, but I felt like there were too many winks to the audience saying "Well, you know how it goes from here". I love Steve Buscemi, but I felt that his role as their rival to be was a little underdeveloped, except for one line at the end, which is one of those winks that I was just talking about. And while it did bog me to the point that it's worth mentioning, it didn't keep me from enjoying the rest of the movie, it didn't even bug me while I was watching the movie, I just thought of that point now while I was writing this.

With all that aside, I do recommend Monsters University, because let's face it, it's a Pixar film. If you have blood in your veins, you're obligated to see the film at least once, whether for it's heart or for it's clever humor, and there is quite a bit of both to be found in there latest film.

Final Grade: B +, I'd see it again, maybe buy it on Blu Ray

Man of Steel

If there was ever a franchise that needed saving after the nineties, other than Batman, it was Superman. I don't know much about Superman's lore or mythos, but I do know that his original franchise was similar to Batman's in a lot of ways. The first two were good, if perhaps a bit corny, and the third and fourth sucked balls. Around the time that Batman Begins came out, Warner Bros, also tried reviving Superman with Bryan Singer's Superman Returns, which was a continuation of the Superman canon, while leaving out the third and fourth movies and denying they existed. Which was great except that Returns ended up being mediocre at best and not the savior that fans were hoping for. Since then, Warner Bros has been looking for a way to resurrect the franchise in the same way that Nolan resurrected Batman. For a while, it was rumored that Nolan himself was going to direct a Superman film and maybe even a crossover film with his Dark Knight trilogy. Admittedly, that was not an idea that I was all that excited for, and I would still like it if that never happened. However, I was interested in seeing a new Superman and thought it would be interesting to see what Nolan and his team, including famous comic book writer David S Goyer could bring to the table. The result is Man of Steel.

There are a lot of things to like about Man of Steel. For starters, I think the prologue on Krypton could be made into an entire movie itself. It was really interesting to see a new take on the planet's culture and history and I got to admit, I was not a fan of the way it was portrayed in the original series. They made it seem too perfect. In this new storyline, they make Krypton a once great planet whose ambition and over reaching its grasp had lead to its destruction. And to me, that is far more interesting since in here, it's their fault that Krypton was doomed in the first place. The rest of the story is pretty good, though I feel that the stuff on Krypton was a bit too rushed because I was really hoping to see more of it. Also, what almost kills the movie for me is that the villain's plot is exactly the same as the villains on all of the Transformers movies. Though, I think this was noticably better than in the Transformers movies, I still could not get over it.

I've never been a huge Zack Snyder fan, but when I heard that he was hired to helm the project, I thought that was the perfect choice. Even in Snyder's duds, like Suckerpunch (it sucked guys, get over it), I give him credit for his visual style so that there is never a dull moment in the movie, and you can see he really went all out for his scenes on Krypton as well as any scene where Superman is flying or fighting.

And the casting was the one area I was hoping the movie would soar, and in some cases it did, especially with Henry Cavill and Russell Crowe, but in other areas, I thought it fell flat. Michael Shannon is a talented actor and is great on Boardwalk Empire, and I was really pulling for him to steal the show here, perhaps not to the degree of Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch or even Heath Ledger, but I was really hoping he would just command the screen and while he did a good job, it wasn't the scene stealer I was hoping for. The rest of the cast is okay, but considering it includes A listers like Laurence Fishburne and Amy Adams, I was hoping there was more done with them.

So, overall not a bad movie, but I think it would require me to see it again before I say whether or not I would buy it on Blu-Ray. But, I would definitely say that I recommend it.

Final Grade: B, I'd see it again, not sure if I'd buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray

Fast and Furious 6

I have to admit, I have never really given the Fast and Furious franchise much thought, which is why when I first saw Fast Five, I didn't really get that these were movies that were made for the sole purpose of being big stupid fun, so when I saw the fifth movie, which was the first one that I ever saw, I ripped it apart. In recent years, however, I have grown to appreciate the movies more and say that while I wouldn't say that any of the Fast and Furious movies are ones that I am rushing out to buy on DVD, I do see their value and I guess I wouldn't mind sitting and watching them if they were on TV or if I was at a friend's house.

I guess I just gave away all of the review that I had lined up for Fast 6, so I guess there isn't a whole lot else to talk about. Well, why don't we cover the high points. The biggest high point of the movie has to be Dwayne Johnson. If anybody gets what the point of these movies are, it's this guy. For a while, people were saying that he was the one to take the baton from Arnold, and I think that is really the case with his character. He's an FBI agent that has a massive build and is never, and I mean NEVER seen without a black Under Armor shirt on. I honestly think he has a whole closet full of them. And just the way he acts and says his lines just shows that he really knows what these movies are, and you can tell he is just having a blast with it, which makes him so much fun to watch.

The other high point of the film is the climax, which is so stupid and awesome, that I can only attempt to describe it. All I can say is that it takes place on the world's longest runway.

Other than that, there isn't really much else that I can say that you don't already know. The key to enjoying these movies is to just detach yourself from reality, leave logic at the door and turn your brain off and just enjoy the ride.

Final Grade: B, not rushing out to buy it on DVD, but I still liked it

Star Trek Into Darkness

Let's get this out of the way, I am a Star Wars man, through and through. I grew up idolizing Han Solo and never gave much attention to the crew of the Enterprise. But, like a good sport recognizing the worth of my adversary, I always acknowledged that there were some good things about Star Trek. Although I never really gave a rat's ass, and up until 2009, the only Trek film I had seen was Nemesis. Clearly, it was an uphill battle for me to be hooked by Kirk and Spock. However, when I saw the 2009 reboot, I was actually surprised by how much I liked it. I was kinda dragged into seeing it because my Dad was a huge Star Trek fan and was really hyped to see it and I thought "What the heck, I'll give it a shot". And yeah, I thought the movie was pretty good. It felt like a crash course in Star Trek for those who were unfamiliar with the characters and lore, but it also had some good action to go along with it. Really, the only thing missing was a strong villain and while Nero was a solid villain, he didn't really meet the high bar set by the rest of the movie.

So, when rumors started coming up about a sequel, I felt more inclined to see this one, only because I immensely enjoyed the previous one and had no reason to suspect anything less from this installment. And where 2009 failed in the area of a good villain, it appeared that the makers of Into Darkness wanted to excel. First off, they kept the villain's identity shrouded in mystery, causing people to suspect it would be someone like Gary Mitchell or Khan Noonen Singh. I'm not going to give away anything about the movie itself, but speaking as a non trekkie who has now seen 4 Star Trek movies (2009, Nemesis, Into Darkness and Wrath of Khan), I gotta say that again, JJ Abrams delivered a really awesome movie. Of course the one thing you are going to walk away from and remember the most is the villain, played by Benedict Cumberbatch who just commands the screen every time he is on and owns every line of his dialogue. In my opinion, he's the best part of the movie, and I don't think I am alone on that. His character has that perfect combination of superior intelligence and strength that leads to some really badass moments, like single-handedly decimating a group of Klingons wielding a rifle in one hand and a BFG in the other and then not flinching or batting an eyelash while Kirk attempts to beat the crap out of him. And just the way that he manipulates and mindfucks people is just incredible. There have been a number of good villains since Heath Ledger played the Joker, and John Harrison is probably the best one to come in the years following, you can quote me on that.

The rest of the movie has it's strengths too. At least I'm assuming it does, I was too blown away by Cumberbatch to even remember the rest. I've got a bit of a man crush on him, in case I haven't made that obvious yet. In all seriousness though, Star Trek Into Darkness is a great movie that, if you can, I would tell you to see it in IMAX, just to behold the majesty of Cumberbatch even more. And, if this film is any indication of what Star Wars will be like, then I am already buying my ticket for Episode VII

Final Grade: A+ See it again, but it on blu-ray

The Great Gatsby

I don't even know where to begin. I was really looking forward to this movie because I love the novel and I was really hoping for a good adaptation because gosh darn it, this book deserves a good movie. It deserves a movie of the caliber of Lord of the Rings, that's how good it is. Now, for those of you who have been following the critic's reactions, you'll know that the critic's reviews have been mostly negative and the audience's response has been pretty mixed. And once again, it is up to me to give you the real deal. It fucking sucks.

I know there are people who really like this movie, but I'm going to tell you to ignore them. They're idiots. If they have any sort of love for F Scott Fitzgerald's book and actually understood it, then they would hate this movie. Fitzgerald is spinning in his grave. God! I fucking hate this movie! Baz Lurhmann was the one person who should NOT have been trusted with making this movie. You know why? Because I don't even think he knew what book he was making. He was just using a random source material as an excuse to try and jam his pretentious artsy style down our throats. If you want to do that with a book that's fine, but for the love of God, don't make it The Great Gatsby!

I'm not going to get into the story of the movie because if you graduated from high school, then you probably already know it. And because Lurhmann sure didn't care about the story, all he cared about was how it looked, how long he could make the party scenes and putting rap music into it. The party scenes were so long and drawn out that I began to check my watch during them. Everything about them really boggled me, from the way that they were shot, edited and even the choice of music for them. For being as long as they were, they were shot and edited in a really fast manner. I get that it's to show our characters having a wild and crazy time, but why does it have to be so long? You could have gotten the idea across and made the scene so much shorter. And then music wise, it would start with something that sounded like music that would be played during that time, but then all of a sudden, it would just randomly transition into some rap number. When the soundtrack for the movie was released, I told everyone my disdain for it because it was all Jay-Z, Beyonce, Fergie, will.i.am and so on, and I expressed my bewilderment that they would be showing up at all in a movie set in the jazz age. Now, I know that Baz's style is to take an older source material and give it a modern spin to appeal to today's audience (I'll get into that later), but I just don't see the point for a movie on Gatsby. Gatsby was a statement about the jazz age, it sort of created that picture of what society and people were like in that time the same way The Canterbury Tales and Huckleberry Finn painted similar portraits for the times that they were written in. Having said that, this movie should have been a hardcore period piece, something like Boardwalk Empire, that has been a 30 hour period piece set during the exact same time as Gatsby, and they have been doing it just fine. When a novel makes this profound of a statement about its setting, it doesn't need modern elements. And when you look at the opening, it looks like that is what we are going to get. The Warner Bros. logo is in black and white and it's all grainy, it kind of reminded me of something out of the Bioshock games, and since those games, while they were science fiction horror games, they also had an aura that made you feel like you were in the time that they were set in, I thought maybe the same could happen here. I am a fool for hoping for as much.

And when you really think about it, the music was only really used during the party scenes. Someone who saw the movie before me told me that when you were hearing the Jay-Z or whoever the hell's song it was during the party, it was meant to be something that only us, the audience, could hear. But no, there were moments when the camera would go to someone inside, and the music would get really muffled and quieter, the way music sounds when you are inside, and it is being played outside. So no, the characters can clearly hear it. And honestly, when you take all of this into account, I really have to ask WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE STORY OF GATSBY?!!! It has absolutely nothing to do with Jay Gatsby. When you think about it, all of this modern day shit did nothing to move the story along or advance our emotions. It just made us say "Hey! Cool party! I wish I was there!" If anything, it brings the story to a halt because we have to spend 10-15 minutes on something that took up about five pages in the book. Towards the end, everything felt rushed because somebody finally realized that they were taking way too much time with unnecessary shit. There was a great part at the end of the book that involves Gatsby's father and it got cut out of the movie! That was a really important part that gave us some more insight into our hero, and it got left out! I haven't been this mad about a scene getting cut since Dumbledore's funeral! Another part that was left out involved our narrator interacting with the other characters after Gatsby's death. He refuses to shake one character's hand and is rude to the other character. We see his hatred for the characters and why Gatsby of all people is the one who remained in such respect.

There are two ways that the narrative/cgi relationship can work. You can either use cgi to help tell your story, similar to say Lord of the Rings, or you can use your story to give you more excuses to use cgi, as is the case with the Star Wars prequels. The second approach is a risky one, and nowadays, people are beginning to see through it more and more. To be honest, I'm not entirely against heavy use of cgi, just as long as it is done right. I'm not a huge Zack Snyder fan, but in cases like 300 or Watchmen, he really put his computers to good use and gave those movies a look and style that really worked. Gatsby, sadly, also used this second approach, but it ended up being more like the Star Wars prequels. This movie used way too much cgi and while it looks cool, one really has to question what the point was. I'll admit that it looks nice, but again, going back to the Star Wars prequels, we all know that you can polish a turd all you like, it's still a piece of shit. I was once watching an interview with some of the actors in the Star Wars prequels, and they were complaining about how almost every set they were on had some kind of green screen connected to it. The same is the case here. Though, with Star Wars, it's slightly more justifiable because that is a movie about adventures in space with other planets and weird aliens. Did I just say George Lucas is a better filmaker than Baz Luhrmann? Yup. While we're at it, at least George Lucas tried writing his own material. It was awkward and hackneyed  but it was his own. Baz Luhrmann took a novel he clearly doesn't understand and used it as a vehicle to ram his overly artsy and pretentious style down our throats.  And I know that he doesn't understand it because if he understood it, he would not have volunteered to make the movie because he should know himself well enough to know that he couldn't resist the urge to do his thing, and he would have realized that he should, for the good of the novel, stay the fuck away. His style adds nothing to what should have been the main focus, the story. It just felt like he was going through the motions with the story while his real attention was on how it looked. In the end, the narrator (played by Tobey Maguire who honestly looked like he had no idea what he was doing) had to tell us how we should feel about these characters. We have to feel inspired by Gatsby's spirit. And the reason why I know that is because the narrator told us that, we didn't get to experience it for ourselves. They wasted so much time on useless crap that the stuff that mattered ended up getting rushed into a narration rather than it being properly displayed through dialogue and action.

So how was the acting? Well, I have to say that I certainly had high hopes from the cast because it is certainly a good collection of actors. In the end, I only had 3 people that I was all that impressed with: Leo, Joel Edgerton and the gal who played Jordan. Leo DiCaprio always turns in a good performance, but even then, I have seen far better from him. Whenever I heard his voice, I just kept thinking of J. Edgar Hoover. And he is supposed to be portraying the ultimate facade. Someone who is really charismatic and acts like they are on top of the world but on the inside, has a lot of baggage to deal with, similar to Bruce Wayne. In fact, with the right writing, you could have had Christian Bale play this part really well because he's already played that part perfectly. Joel Edgerton was great as Tom, and it's nice to see him getting more roles, because the guy's a good actor, and he really got to show his range with this character. Jordan's role was really underwritten I thought and the script didn't give the actress playing her much to work with, but she did her best and her effort shows. Carey Mulligan, who I was hoping would steal the show, was just annoying and she is supposed to be the girl every guy wanted to be with, and she never really showed any of that in her performance. And Tobey Maguire, bless his heart, just has this look on his face like he doesn't know what he's doing there. In his opening narration, he sounds really old and I thought it was going to be narrated by an older Nick Carraway who is relating this story to us, the audience. Instead, it's being told by a young Nick Carraway about a month after it all happened to his therapist. This subplot really baffled me because it wasn't in the novel  and there was no point to it. You coud have left those scenes out and it would have cost us nothing, except maybe a shorter screentime, but then again, I felt that this movie was about twenty minutes too long anyway so their loss is our gain.

The last thing that I have to touch on is who they were aiming at. I keep hearing that the target audience is those who didn't read the book. Why? You know that this book is a famous and beloved one, and you know that people have long been waiting for a good movie on it, so why are you pandering to those who never bothered? In the end, all you'll end up doing (and did end up doing) was dumming down a great book so that your audience can enjoy it. As for the modern music, the argument is that he is trying to hook younger audiences into coming. How can I put this? I find it disgusting when a director feels the need to pander to who they think their audience will be. Younger audiences should learn to put down the Transformers doll and pay attention to what a good story is. When all is said and done, all you accomplished was sacrificing the dignity of one of my favorite books all so that you could serve your own artistic ego.

Final Grade: F, I don't want to see this movie ever again.